Tuesday, March 06, 2007

It might be that the laws change absolutely with time; that gravity for instance varies with time and that this inverse square law has a strength which depends on how long it is since the beginning of time. In other words, it's possible that in the future we'll have more understanding of everything and physics may be completed by some kind of statement of how things started which are external to the laws of physics.Richard Feynman

While by myself and my explanations, it may seem mystical indeed. In my years of research previous, it was much so. But the research is no less important then the realization that the world in which we live is governed by the list of ways that we measure. A selection from the "sensorium" to have it gain in "probable pictorial outcomes, by recognizing "the crossed wired" in our views, as one more variable?

You may use the scientific measure to take "three pictures" of the same thing, and of this, what physics is attached to what we observe out there in space? What computer processes had we detailed in the "depth of seeing" as we explore the "physics of approach," and see what beautiful pictures of Hubble, or other satellites that we gain much from the beauty of pictures received.

So a picture of the sun taken "over time" in gamma ray detection. What view is that in our depths of reason to understand the sun has certain processes to it? That what we seen in the relation to mind as a physics approach is no less important to what we observe, and are a part of.

So the onus is on the researcher to gain much more with the depth of reason. So in having sought science to help, one might deal with how we are relating to our world. Is it the beauty that detracts from what lies underneath, or that we understand with a greater measure the valuation we have had with that exchange with reality?

I have see how the scientists engaged. I had lacked a "complete view" of their reality. I saw records of what the "bubble of experience allows them too" in their writings. That they could be, separate from all that exists around them, yet, they are apart of the greater aspect of reality. How dangerous are their voices in lacking, what those of the layman are lacking, when a layman speaks with authority?

This is not to lash out at the scientist, but make him/her aware of the greater potential of information that exists. That speaking "from a solid foundation" just as important as what we read and take part in, as we read the journalism of science.

Who is the Teacher

For me it has been the many who now actively engage by participating in the world of blogging, that I can now say I been so lucky. That what was so distant from, can now become a part of my life. Before this it was books, and I had to piece meal, but now I see the result of many scientists who have helped, greatly developed by giving and that example.

I lacked experience, and thus too, am trying to find my way. Live by example. So too, the teacher assumes that what he teaches, is lived by in his own history, and so of his forbears. So should we become humble in our approaches? That we have so much to learn, and that as human beings, we are not so far apart in our adventures into describing what reality is to us.

There is this demand then of the qualitative measure of that reality that it could be infinite, holds uncertainty, yet we would only see part of it? We are a part of it.

That the mind and it's subjective thoughts could now become part of science is the route "that many a scientists lacked" while holding all the technological values to what is seen in front of them. It to arose out into "validations of measure" as to how mind can be seen.

So quickly I could be dispelled that I thought indeed am I a teacher? What credentials do I have? What gave me authority? While I most certainly say you would be right, and thus, I have been living my fate in amongst the world I develop by my opinion. By "how flowery" I had become.

But without the "physical teacher" what said that we could not develop into "a teacher" and that all of us could not have this teacher within them? I would not dismiss the "rules of law" or be "sanctioned a journalist" when I too blog. But imagine the access to the "greater ability of information" has changed the way you and I can see. What is your history?

WE give this empowerment to people by giving access of information to them. I would say that by seeing this empowerment "outside of themself," I would not want them to know that they could not live to the higher validation of what a good teacher may mean. I would have to say thus, that it is "by the parent in us," that we see what has been transmitted, and that what can be transmitted, will be sent on to further generations.

That even those without being the parent, as a physical result in children raised, has this parent in them. Would a teacher as a parent know of this feeling as I would? I do not dismiss this in them because of what is real in them. Every measure of the parent in them is the advice they have unconsciously now used as this rule of measure. As they form their opinion of what is a good government had been the realizatin that as a adult now they can selectively say this is now my moral standard of law. I defne this government by what I value, and we had quickly lost the parent in all this? No that parent became a part of you. But you learnt to discern these difference between you as a adult and your parent as a adult. You realized your differences. You realized who you are as a adult.

Now about Gravity

What could I loose if such thoughts are introduced to "what may be possible" and you will have to line up all your sceptics, and it would still not dispel what I already know and have observed against all the gravitational laws as we know them.

I do not ever say stop what you are doing as a scientist. Do not loose these values, but unfortunately, I had seen something that is much like the course of events that will change any person. A "license plate" that holds symmetry? Einstein who was given "the gift of the compass," and I in no way align myself with the brilliance of their moments. But point out that each of us may have been given our own anomalies in life which will propel our searches.

I have mine.

The medium DDHome levitating in front of witnesses during an 1868 séance. It was said on this occasion that Home became curiously “elongated” as he rose into the air. Shortly afterwards, he appeared to float upright outside a third floor window. Home had his detractors, but was never discredited.Image: Fortean Picture Library

I wanted to continue with the article above in my opening paragraph linked. What he called "deep play." Can it be called the "sensorium of exchange with reality" as others too, can measure it's "import to reason?" It emotively had to make sense first.

"Deep play doesn't have to do with an activity, like shallow play. It has to do with attitude or an extraordinarily intense state."-Dianne Ackerman

Can not such an idea would have enlisted even the genius to have found a way to relate to society whilst he had found intuitive moments peaking from the interplay of the "teacher and student" within themself. Engaging the world at a emotive level, whilst trying to find it's meaning about arches and Raphael mandalically placing Plato and Aristotle most centre the larger circle?

The "toposense" between the subjective world and the objective world. As a painting, or a "schematic," to reveal this relationship which is deeply ingrained in each of us. We just lacked the explanation of it?

Some how one can have these thoughts about things "being subjective" somehow misses the scientific validation process. Are you to strict? That it is somehow related to the "philosophical analysis" and somehow not worthy of the introspective history. To even include where such ideas can emerge from is preposterous? What did they build on? Resources, which can be drawn from the archived data and materials, to greatly enhance routes that have already been established.

Would you ignore one who had developed his perspective in relation to "symmetry" and not include it in one's analysis of what may be "beautiful" yet still evades our thinking about a supersymmetrical point? AS a scientist you may have quickly sideswipe any relatin to this yet I know scientists who might have said otherwise.

Only does it then make sense, when something is asymmetrically emerging from it? Discrete?

Beauty, Plato wrote, is not easy to define, but something that "slips through and evades us". For this reason, many logic-oriented philosophical approaches tend to divorce and even oppose truth and beauty. "The question of truth", wrote logician Gottlob Frege in one of his most influential works, "would cause us to abandon aesthetic delight for an attitude of scientific investigation."

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Not everyone will understand the title of this post? I will proceed to make this "exceptionally clear" once all of the post is completed. Some who visit will understand "something is nagging from the subconscious" to look at this even more. I do this on purpose by proposing the title and all "subsequent information a little later" as I am short on time as well.

You needed to know that any human endeavour to try and understand the self we need help sometimes, and I have no one who will do this work for me. I had to go looking for it. To realize the "synchronicity within of my own struggle" was actually recorded somewhere else. That my very site on it's own is realize within the inductive/deductive features where the need to relate too, demanded in my metaphoric relation to science as to how I was interacting with the world around me.

Now again I caution people to know that I am not saying I have this "topic related" other then to say "I see the world from the inside out." And that if you can digest this last statement then you will see what is happening a lot within this site I created, has some correlation within the study of others. I had no idea of these correlations until the words themselves help me to spot the nature of my own expressions.

I do take comfort from the fact Marcia Smilack recognized my language immediately, and that finally I was not alone in my attempts. With all my procrastination on explaining myself received, could finally have dealt with what had give me my views on science.

So I will demonstrate and "turn around a cartoon I seen" to help one understand "how I see" and then you see this cartoon in relation to it's owner's representation for comparison. It is a difference in how "my subjective views" are held in correlation to the original viewers own anecdotal evidence.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

I am not sure how this post is to unfold, yet in my mind different exercises were unfolding as to how I should explain it. Can I come from an artist's perspective I wondered? Say "by chance" anything that seems relevant here in writing, and any relation to science "is" metaphorical by nature?

Does one want to gleam only what is coming across in geometrical form as a painting without understanding the depth of the artist in expression? Some may say, why any association at all, and just leave science to what it knows best without implicating any theoretical positions with the thought pertaining to gravity here.

Yes that's why I selected the title of this post as thus, and why I am going to give perspective to what I may, "as artist in writing" see with these words, and then you decide whether it is useful to you.

The Field as the Plane

An ancient thought penetrated my thinking as I thought of "the field" that a society can work in agriculture, and yet, by definition it was the plane, "length and width" that was also appealing here. I did not want to loose it's "origination" while I moved any thinking to the "abstract of brane" and the like, without firmly attaching it to the ground.

But who was to know that this plane could be moved to any "fifth dimensional understanding" without having studied the relationship to dimensional thinking and the like. The physics elevated.

I allow this one time escapism to "other thinking" to demonstrate what use the colour of gravity implies while at the same time "theoretical positions" talk about it's place in the universe. If one did not accept the moves in science and the way it expressed itself to allow geometrical inclination, then how the heck could non-euclidean thinking ever make it's way into how we will discuss "the fields" about us?

It meant that a perspective "on height" be adopted? As an observer I was watching from a position. While in that sleeping/dosing state, I wondered how else to express myself as these concepts were amalgamating themselves into a "conceptual frame of reference?"

The picture of the field(I am referring to the ancient interpretation) continued in my mind, and "by abstract" I thought to introduce a line extend from the centre of this field upward. So here I am looking at this field before me. Now I had wondered off previous by bring "the brane" in here, yet is not without that sight I thought how the heck could any idealization so ancient make sense to what the colour of gravity to mean.

While correlating Newton's work here and the "extra dimensional thinking," I also wanted to include the work of the "Alchemist Newton". "To expand" the current thinking of our "emotive states" as a "vital expression of the biological being."

Draw into any further discussion of the "philosophical or other wise," these views of mine which are a necessary part of what was only held to a "religious and uneducated evolutionary aspect of the human being."

A cosmologist may still say that such thoughts of Einstein used in this vain is wrong, but I could never tear myself away from the views of "durations of time."

So by having defined the "frame of reference," and by introducing "Colour of gravity" I thought it important and consistent with the science to reveal how dynamical any point within that reference can become expressive. The history in association also important.

So you tend to draw on your reserves for such comparatives while thinking about this. I knew to apply "chemical relations" to this idea, and the consequential evidenced, by the resulting shadings by adding. I wanted to show "this point" moving within this colour space and all the time it's shading was describing the "nature of the gravity."

By adding that vertical line in the field, the perimeter of my field of vision had to some how be drawn to an apex, while all kinds of thoughts about symmetry and perfection arose in my pyramidal mind.

All these colours, infinite in their ability to express the human emotive state, as a consequence of philosophical and expressed as function of the emotive being?

the quantum entanglement would become so spread out through these interactions with the environment that it would become virtually impossible to detect. For all intents and purposes, the original entanglement between photons would have been erased.

Never the less it is truly amazing that these connections do exist, and that carefully arranged laboratory conditions they can be observed over significant distances. They show us, fundamentally, that space is not what we once thought it was. What about time?Page 123, The Fabric of the Cosmo, by Brian Greene

So many factors to include here, yet it is with the "idea of science" that I am compelled to see how things can get all mixed up, while I say emotive state, or Colours of gravity?

It gets a little complicated for me here, yet the "Fuzzy logic" introduced or "John Venn's logic" is not without some association here. Or, the psychology I had adopted as I learnt to read of models and methods in psychology that could reveal the thinking we have developed, and what it included.

Least I forget the "real entanglement" issues here, I have painted one more aspect with the "Colour of Gravity" to be included in this dimensional perspective, as we look to the models in science as well?

Working from basic principles and the history of spooky has made this subject tenable in today's world. A scientist may not like all the comparisons I have made based on it, I could never see how the emotive and mental statements of the expressive human being could not have been included in the making of the reality.

That I may of thought the "perfection of the human being" as some quality of the God in us all, would have granted sanction to some developing view of "religious virtuosity," against the goals of the scientist. So as ancient the views painted, there was something that may have been missed of the "Sensorium," and goes toward the basis of the philosophy shared currently by Lee Smolin.

This entanglement to me is a vital addition to our exploration of the universe. Our place and observation within it? It did not mean to discount our inclusion within it, within a larger "oscillatory perspective."

While reading the responses to Aaron on the Cosmic Variance section, Lee Smolin made a comment there in his writing which triggered some recognition as I was doing some research on what he had proposed in previous work. So of course I am interested in how people form their ideas, so I went to have a look.

The critic is very harsh toward Lee Smolin, and I am very sensitive to these kinds of responses, so trust me when I tell you that these are not my views. My views are still forming.

Lee Smolin:

For Newton the universe lived in an infinite and featureless space.There was no boundary, ad no possibility of conceiving anything outside of it. This was no problem for God, as he was everywhere. For Newton, space was the "sensorium" of God-the medium of his presence in and attachment to the world. The infinity of space was then a necessary reflection of the infinite capacity of God.The Life of the Cosmos By Lee Smolin Oxford University Press; New York, N.Y.: 1997, Page 91

The term "Sensorium" is compelling for reasons that I am still not quite aware of, yet, it holds a fascination to me. It is colourful to me, yet, it had a nice ring to it as well.

Okay. :) I think it is the "relationship pointed out" and describing this relationship of Newton that is interesting. Most who have been reading my site will have some inkling of why.

It is not in what may be assumed of Newton and his religion towards the relationship to science? But some of the ways in which such "thought processes" may have been compelling. The way in which one can look at the world, gives new meaning to what was not so transparent before, now one included these aspects of the sensorium as "one."

That all of the senses had been "crossed wire to give perspective" in the way it did. How would you know this?

But lets move on with this here for a minute and I'll tell you why. But first some part of it's Definition from Wikipedia.

Part of the developing scientific view can come forth with new propositions if it has a foundation that is different then what was thought to be "it's basis of normalcy."

But imagine if you were a little different in your wiring that as a scientist you had difficult relating to the world, and you want to be consistent with your approach? Develope new methods, Calculus, to explain a process in nature? What may I ask will be forth coming form such a position, not to have thought, "hey this guy is nuts or just a broken flower pot?"

The track record so far seems to indicate that if such views are crossed wired in some ways, the interactive features of developing perspective will give model apprehension a new meaning that it did not have before?

Feynman in his concepts of a toy model approach? He may of seen what was of use from Dirac's geometrical thinking.